Removed Scripture?

[YADA]

Actually only one copy of the Gospel of Thomas has been located so far, 65 years ago. Research the Nag Hammadi Library for more information. Many of the earliest copies of the NT, the dates of which you mentioned, were not discovered until the late 19th century. Therefore, discrediting Thomas simply because the only discovered copy is dated less than a hundred years after the other Gospels is not really a valid argument. There probably are copies which have not yet been discovered which were written earlier. The real question that needs to be answered is who actually wrote the accepted writings of the New Testament, not the dates of the non-Canon documents.

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas

Scholarsdate from140 AD to 170 AD andit isconsidered to be a work that does not promote authentically Christian beliefs regarding the life of Jesus. Nor are the values displayed by the God -Child Jesus in the stories in harmony with the Gopels of Matthew Mark Luke and John. This gospel describes the doings of Jesus in his boyhood. He isshown instructing his schoolteachers, performingmiracles forfamily and friends. Also many scholarsbelievetheclaimto Thomas is a late or secondary development atrributed to the writings. Original language is inboubt and it may have beenw written in either Syriac or Greek.

The Gospel of Thomas [200 AD to 250 AD for most scolars - though some date it earlier]

A collection of the sayings of Jesus … 114 different sayings. Though the sayings resemble those found in the Gospels - the 4 Gospels are a narrative account. The list of sayings in the Gospel of Thomas is just that - the sayings no ‘story’ … [an aside here: this list of sayings resembles what some scholars believe the concept of the Q source would look]

It is not hard to see why the Gospel of Thomas would nat make the Cannon even if given an early compsotion date … one passage [the last or very near the last] about women being able to enter into heaven but only by becoming a man first would do it … but for every quotation that rsembles authentic Christian belief there are some really bizarre ones.

 

[shadow21084]

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas

Scholarsdate from140 AD to 170 AD andit isconsidered to be a work that does not promote authentically Christian beliefs regarding the life of Jesus. Nor are the values displayed by the God -Child Jesus in the stories in harmony with the Gopels of Matthew Mark Luke and John. This gospel describes the doings of Jesus in his boyhood. He isshown instructing his schoolteachers, performingmiracles forfamily and friends. Also many scholarsbelievetheclaimto Thomas is a late or secondary development atrributed to the writings. Original language is inboubt and it may have beenw written in either Syriac or Greek.

The Gospel of Thomas [200 AD to 250 AD for most scolars - though some date it earlier]

A collection of the sayings of Jesus … 114 different sayings. Though the sayings resemble those found in the Gospels - the 4 Gospels are a narrative account. The list of sayings in the Gospel of Thomas is just that - the sayings no ‘story’ … [an aside here: this list of sayings resembles what some scholars believe the concept of the Q source would look]

It is not hard to see why the Gospel of Thomas would nat make the Cannon even if given an early compsotion date … one passage [the last or very near the last] about women being able to enter into heaven but only by becoming a man first would do it … but for every quotation that rsembles authentic Christian belief there are some really bizarre ones.

Actually, the passage that you quoted basically conforms to Catholic practices (ex. there are no female priests and the Catholic Church and its teachings have always been male dominant). The quote which really challenges the existence of the church and may have contributed to the gospel’s exclusion goes like this: “Cleave the wood, I am there; lift the stone, and you shall find me there.” That quote can be interpreted to mean that there is no need to worship God in a church building with priests. God can be worshiped wherever one is at any given time. Currently, the fears that the early bishops probably had when they chose to exclude the sayings Gospel of Thomas are a reality. In the United States and elsewhere entire parishes are closing due to a lack of parishioners. That decline of Catholic church participation is related to the sex scandals which began seven years ago, but they have had a long term affect. Furthermore, many Catholics such as myself have begun to question whether the Catholic Church is truly following God’s will. The Church can no longer rely on the ignorance of uneducated masses to follow it with blind faith as has been the practice in the past.

 

[utunumsint]

almosthome1,
Despite what the other members have posted, much of what you are being told by your family members is actually true. In the second century the Bible (Old and New Testament) was compiled.

Can you provide support for this statement?

The texts which were accepted were chosen not because they were considered to be the authentic “Word of God”, but because they supported the established teachings of the church.

Who did the choosing? Can you give names? What evidence do you have?

Texts such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary were excluded because they challenged the very existence of a church. Many theologians would tell you that those texts were excluded because they may have been written by a sect called the Gnostics, but there is NO evidence that Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John were NOT written by Gnostics. Also, the Gospel of Thomas was originally written during the same period as the four accepted Gospels.

One of the major problems with your thesis is as follows.

The early church fathers from the first and early second century quoted almost all the books in the new testament. These fathers include St.Clement of Rome, Didache, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp. If you include Justin, you have all of them quoted. The writers noted above do not quote one passage from the Gnostic Gospels. Not one. And yet Didache and St. Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians pre-dates the Gospel of John and Revelations. But they do not even mention the Gnostics.

The first real mention you get of Gnosticism is, possibly, in the first letter of John where there is a condemnation of Doceticism. It isn’t until Irenaeus that you get a full blown confrontation with Gnosticism.

This total lack of mention or quotation of any gnostic texts until the time of Irenaeus is in completely oposition to the theory that the gnostic gospels were contemporary with the cannonical Gospels.

Those people who wish to see the Gnostic Gospels on an equal basis with the canonical gospels do so for political reasons, not for reasons based on good scholarship. I sympatize with them, because the scandals, and other abuses in the church have created an atmosphere which gives these theories credibility, however, that credibility does not come from sound scholarship.

God bless,
Ut

 

[shadow21084]

Can you provide support for this statement?

Who did the choosing? Can you give names? What evidence do you have?

One of the major problems with your thesis is as follows.

The early church fathers from the first and early second century quoted almost all the books in the new testament. These fathers include St.Clement of Rome, Didache, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp. If you include Justin, you have all of them quoted. The writers noted above do not quote one passage from the Gnostic Gospels. Not one. And yet Didache and St. Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians pre-dates the Gospel of John and Revelations. But they do not even mention the Gnostics.

The first real mention you get of Gnosticism is, possibly, in the first letter of John where there is a condemnation of Doceticism. It isn’t until Irenaeus that you get a full blown confrontation with Gnosticism.

This total lack of mention or quotation of any gnostic texts until the time of Irenaeus is in completely oposition to the theory that the gnostic gospels were contemporary with the cannonical Gospels.

Those people who wish to see the Gnostic Gospels on an equal basis with the canonical gospels do so for political reasons, not for reasons based on good scholarship. I sympatize with them, because the scandals, and other abuses in the church have created an atmosphere which gives these theories credibility, however, that credibility does not come from sound scholarship.

God bless,
Ut

The Gospel of Matthew predates the other three canonical Gospels and it does not mention the Gnostics. Is it not possible that the Gospels were written by Gnostics and then accepted into the church cannon at a time when the Church was not at war with the Gnostics? For that to be possible, all that would need to occur is for even one of the four Gospels to have predated Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses, which they all do. By Irenaeus’ time the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were probably so accepted that Irenaeus simply did not challenge them. That does not mean that they were not originally written by Gnostics. As for your question of who chose the Gospels and other NT texts, that was done by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage between 390 and 426.

 

[utunumsint]

The Gospel of Matthew predates the other three canonical Gospels and it does not mention the Gnostics. Is it not possible that the Gospels were written by Gnostics and then accepted into the church cannon at a time when the Church was not at war with the Gnostics? For that to be possible, all that would need to occur is for even one of the four Gospels to have predated Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses, which they all do. By Irenaeus’ time the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were probably so accepted that Irenaeus simply did not challenge them. That does not mean that they were not originally written by Gnostics. As for your question of who chose the Gospels and other NT texts, that was done by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage between 390 and 426.

The problem with that theory is that Clement of Rome, Didache, Ignatius, and Polycarp do not have a trace of gnostic teachings in them.

Gnosticism is usually docetic, meaning they deny the reality of the incarnation, and believe that Jesus is pure spirit. They are also often dualistic, in a manichean sense. These two tendencies are in conflict with canonical gospel teachings, which emphasises the incarnation, and the absolute dominion of God over all creation. With Clement of Rome and Ignatius, we have a clear identification of the church with the ecclesial structure of bishop, priest and laity. There is a firm attachment to what had been handed down by apostolic succession. All of this is missing from Gnostic teachings.

What is the commonly accepted theory is that the Gnostic took the gospels, and reworked the material to fit their theological agenda, producing the Gospel of St. Thomas, and many others.

Also, if Gnostic and Catholics were supposedly at peace during the early period, then you would expect to find Gnostic writings in the early church fathers I mentioned. But there is nothing. There are no first and second century writers who quote from these books, which indicates to me that they either did not exist yet, or were accepted by only a small group of people.

You also have the muratorian fragment that lists all the accepted books at the time, and there are no gnostic gospels found there. It lists all the books that could be read during the liturgy.

God bless,
Ut

 

[juliamajor]

The Gospel of Matthew predates the other three canonical Gospels and it does not mention the Gnostics. Is it not possible that the Gospels were written by Gnostics and then accepted into the church cannon at a time when the Church was not at war with the Gnostics? For that to be possible, all that would need to occur is for even one of the four Gospels to have predated Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses, which they all do. By Irenaeus’ time the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were probably so accepted that Irenaeus simply did not challenge them. That does not mean that they were not originally written by Gnostics. As for your question of who chose the Gospels and other NT texts, that was done by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage between 390 and 426./QUOTe
Majority of scholars believe that MARK rather then Matthew predates the other Gospels- Muratorian Canon predates those stated. and Paul predates them all. Paul proves that a church was established, that their was a theology , that their was structure…That their was dissenters and other theologies around is evident but Paul predates and puts a face on a theology that apparently was in synch with the apostles and the earliest aspects of the church Jesus founded

 

[diggerdomer]

By Irenaeus’ time the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were probably so accepted that Irenaeus simply did not challenge them. That does not mean that they were not originally written by Gnostics. As for your question of who chose the Gospels and other NT texts, that was done by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage between 390 and 426.

Actually, Irenaeus is sometimes credited with “saving” John because there was a large degree of skepticism as to whether it belonged in Scripture. Irenaeus’ defense of the four Gospels (no more, no less) was instrumental in keeping John in the canon.

The Church chose the Gospels and NT texts by using and preserving them…long before the Councils of Hippo and Carthage confirmed the canon explicitly.

 

[utunumsint]

Majority of scholars believe that MARK rather then Matthew predates the other Gospels- Muratorian Canon predates those stated. and Paul predates them all. Paul proves that a church was established, that their was a theology , that their was structure…That their was dissenters and other theologies around is evident but Paul predates and puts a face on a theology that apparently was in synch with the apostles and the earliest aspects of the church Jesus founded

This is the fundamental issue here. For anyone to claim that the early church was Gnostic, you would essentially have to prove that Paul was Gnostic, which is an impossible task. Paul is a firm believer in the literal resurection of Christ. He is not docetic, nor is he a dualist. You would also have to show that he was not a Jew, or a pharisee, that he did not persecute the church.

Paul’s letters are the earliest Christian writing we have. The first letter to the Thessalonians has been dated as early as 15 years after the resurection and contains quotations of creeds and liturgical elements that show there was already an established communal tradition that people were drawing from regarding the resurection, and the life of Christ.

Throughout Paul’s letters, there are references to historical figured mentioned in the Gospels, such as Peter, James, and John, references to their teachings, to their attitudes towards right belief (orthodoxy). When you compare these writings to the Gnostic Gospels, you quickly see the contradictions pop up, and also the vague fictional quality of the Gnostic writings, none of which are comparable to the real Gospels.

God bless,
Ut

 

[shadow21084]

Actually, Irenaeus is sometimes credited with “saving” John because there was a large degree of skepticism as to whether it belonged in Scripture. Irenaeus’ defense of the four Gospels (no more, no less) was instrumental in keeping John in the canon.

The Church chose the Gospels and NT texts by using and preserving them…long before the Councils of Hippo and Carthage confirmed the canon explicitly.

Diggerdomer, the whole reason why the councils were convened in the first place was because different books were being used by each parish or region. The early bishops were in strong disagreement over which texts should be canonized. The councils were supposed to bring unity to the Church by deciding on specific texts which would be used universally. So if you are suggesting that the texts which are now canon were used by the entire Church before the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, that idea is misguided.

 

[diggerdomer]

Diggerdomer, the whole reason why the councils were convened in the first place was because different books were being used by each parish or region. The early bishops were in strong disagreement over which texts should be canonized. The councils were supposed to bring unity to the Church by deciding on specific texts which would be used universally. So if you are suggesting that the texts which are now canon were used by the entire Church before the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, that idea is misguided.

Strong disagreement? Based on what? Everything I’ve read indicates the majority were in agreement, there were only a few texts that differed among communities.

I’m suggesting that the majority of the New Testament canon was commonly recognized in the second century. That’s all, nothing more. The majority. Commonly recognized. If you suggest otherwise please indicate why (and of course I don’t assume you’re misguided if you do).

Anything else you are welcome of course to read anything you want into what I wrote.

 

[jblake]

utunumsint;:

This is the fundamental issue here. For anyone to claim that the early church was Gnostic, you would essentially have to prove that Paul was Gnostic, which is an impossible task.

CF Elaine Pagels The Gnostic Paul, amongst other books.

Paul is a firm believer in the literal resurrection of Christ. He is not docetic, nor is he a dualist.

On those points, his writing is somewhat ambigious. One can argue either way, supporting one’s case with other quotes of his.

The first letter to the Thessalonians has been dated as early as 15 years after the resurrection and contains quotations of creeds and liturgical elements that show there was already an established communal tradition that people were drawing from regarding the resurrection, and the life of Christ.

Those creeds are not incompatible with Gnosticism. Whilst First Thessalonians is not as overtly Gnostic as some of the other Pauline Epistles, that theology is distinctly present.

jonathon

 

[bengland]

CF Elaine Pagels The Gnostic Paul, amongst other books.

What evidence does Elaine Pagels provide? Others believe that the Gospel of Thomas borrowed from the Diatessaron, which would make it a later creation and afaik, most scholars put the Gospel of Thomas in the middle of the second century.